Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38395444›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2024

Patient preferences for investigating cancer-related symptoms in Australian general practice: a discrete-choice experiment.

Brent Venning, Alison Pearce, Richard De Abreu Lourenco, Rebekah Hall, Rebecca J Bergin, Alex Lee, Keith Donohoe, Jon Emery

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Brent VenningDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2631-1002
Alison PearceDaffodil Centre, University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia, and Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5690-9542
Richard De Abreu LourencoCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology Sydney, Haymarket, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5978-8774
Rebekah HallAcaster Lloyd Consulting Ltd, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1804-993X
Rebecca J BerginDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; and Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0448-9125
Alex LeeDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1007-1382
Keith DonohoeConsumer Advisory Committee, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Jon EmeryDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5274-6336

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStriking the right balance between early cancer diagnosis and the risk of excessive testing for low-risk symptoms is of paramount importance. Patient-centred care must also consider patient preferences for testing.

aimTo investigate the diagnostic testing preferences of the Australian public for symptoms associated with oesophagogastric (OG), bowel, or lung cancer. DESIGN AND

settingOne of three discrete-choice experiments (DCEs) related to either OG, bowel, or lung cancer were administered to a nationally representative sample of Australians aged ≥40 years.

methodEach DCE comprised three scenarios with symptom positive predictive values (PPVs) for undiagnosed cancer ranging from 1% to 3%. The numerical risk was concealed from participants. DCE attributes encompassed the testing strategy, GP familiarity, test and result waiting times, travel duration, and test cost. Preferences were estimated using conditional and mixed logit models.

resultsA total of 3013 individuals participated in one of three DCEs: OG (

conclusionAccess-related factors, particularly waiting times and testing costs, emerged as the most pivotal elements influencing preferences, underscoring the substantial impact of these systemic factors on patient choices regarding investigations.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorEarly Detection of CancerGeneral PracticePatient PreferenceAdultAgedAustraliaEsophageal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmscancerdiagnostic testsgeneral practiceinvestigationspatient preferencesymptoms

Identifiers

PMID38395444
PMCPMC11289936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.